I work as a screenwriter for film & TV. In a former life I was a media specialist & campaign ad writer. Follow me on Twitter @MarkHughesFilms; add me on Google+; and read my question and answers about film, comics, and more on Quora.

The Hobbit is a big, bold, beautiful triumph on every level, standing squarely on its own two feet rather than attempting to mimic the style and voice of its predecessors. It is easily one of the year’s best films, and should be a sure nominee for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Visual Effects, and Best Editing (Film and Sound).

I believe this newest movie is even better than The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, and that’s saying quite a lot, obviously. And contrary to many of the glaringly wrongheaded reviews and assertions I’ve heard from some critics, this film is in fact more accessible to mainstream “non-fanboy” audiences. It is faster paced, there is less lingering on nuances of backstory and world-building details (those things are present, but their telling is remarkably economical and seem to breeze past), the characters are easier to remember and distinguish, and it’s a whole lot funnier. That’s right, I said funnier, and I’ll get to that shortly.

Visually, the film really sets itself apart from the previous trilogy. Just as the storytelling is more lighthearted and brisk, so too is the imagery, filled with rich, bright colors and textures while settling into rhythms of wide shots to close-ups, sweeping back and forth, and lots of swooping in and around complex sets and scenery.

The Lord of the Rings, while often reflecting Jackson‘s preference for approaching scenes from different angles and perspectives, still also utilized a lot of “epic” filmmaking choices for setting up shots and sequencing for a lot of key action and establishing shots, and always maintained a certain awareness of its own ambition and history-making status.

But The Hobbit feels fearless and devoid of self-consciousness about expectations or anything other than excitement at telling its story, and at times almost seems to avoid any obvious choices or traditional perspectives in the approach to action and big reveals. Scene after scene, it’s obvious Jackson decided what he thought would be an awesome way for the action to proceed and to look, and then just figured out how to make that happen, no matter how crazy or complicated it might be.

One major aspect of the visual style of this film is the much-debated 48 frames per second. I’ve heard some reviewers claim it looks like a cheap BBC televised production, but that’s utter nonsense. It looked glorious, a level of detail and clarity that enhanced the colors and texture and movements of every scene. It’s akin to the difference between watching a DVD on a regular television, and a Blu-ray on a flat screen HDTV.

When the movie begins, for a couple of minutes the difference in fluidity of movement, the precision of details and depth, is striking. But very quickly your eyes adapt, and the effect is breathtaking.

A big advantage to the new frame rate is that action scenes, even very fast paced sequences full of quick edits and (in one scene) literally hundreds of characters going in every direction, are never hard to follow or blurred by movement. It’s so crisp and clear that you can take it all in and understand what’s going on despite the scale of some of these sequences. Likewise, this means the 3D effect never lacks clarity or blurs from movement, and the result is a 3D depth into the scenery that is perfect throughout. A moment to comment on that — The Hobbit is one of those films that uses 3D to create a sense of space and weight to scenes, delving into the screen rather than just trying to project items out at the audience.

The Hobbit relies on a lot of CGI, and this too benefits from the 48 fps, adding to the film’s unique visual style. The finest moments of these effects come in three particular sequences: the trolls, the goblins, and the inevitable appearance of Gollum. The most lavish of these involves the goblins and their underground lair teeming with hundreds of the creatures in a complicated labyrinth full of so much detail you could watch it several times and keep finding something new happening in some corner in the background. It is a gorgeous spectacle and Jackson here demonstrates his most elaborate choices for shots and action.

But it is Gollum who truly defines the brilliance of the CGI advances on display in the movie. However great you thought Gollum was previously — and he was indeed — you will be in awe of him here. Andy Serkis needs an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor, it’s time for the Academy to cross that nominating threshold and this is the performance to do it. Every CGI character in the film is fully articulated, including flawless mouth movements and lip-syncing that is completely naturalistic. Gollum, however, is in a league all by himself, as real as he could be, the true test of which is that rather than marvel at how realistic he looks and acts and moves, you will simply forget you’re watching CGI.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Mark, Way to give PJ and the gang some love. Here’s a bit of Gollum fun, with a financial twist, you might enjoy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brettnelson/2012/12/13/yogas-latest-craze-could-make-you-rich-while-you-twist/ Best, Brett

Thank you Mr. Hughes! I was a huge, huge fan of the first three movies and have been eagerly waiting for the Hobbit to come to theaters, but after hearing so many negative reviews of the movie over the past few days I have to admit I was getting worried that maybe Jackson went a bit too overboard by trying to stretch this into 3 films. Although I read the books and enjoyed them, I’ve never been nearly as fanatical as so many readers of Tolkiens work seem to be. I think I’m a bit more realistic and understanding to the fact that a movie can’t duplicate the exact same story written in evey book, that there’s certain parts of every book that may slow a story down, not be entertaining enough, etc. I remember hearing so many friends complain that Tom Bombadil wasn’t in the first movies but to be honest, I remember reading the books years ago and remembering and feeling like the story came to a grinding halt because of Tom. I guess I judge a movie just as you mentioned, by the movie itself and not necessarily by the book it was drawn from.

After reading your comments, I really have no doubt that I’m going to love this movie. If anything, one of the things that worried me was that Del Toro was first mentioned as the director and to be honest, I’ve never been a fan of his movies. I always felt that the only person who’s hands this story belongs in, was Jackson himself. With JAckson at the helm, I really never had any doubts that his committment and dedication would make the Hobbit just as good or better than the first three films. CAN”T WAIT TO SEE IT!

Thanks again Mr Hughes for your review, it’s really refreshing to see someone write a review with fresh opinions and not just piggybacking off of the moans and complaints of other writers for the sake of not standing out.

I was lucky enough to see The Hobbit last night in HFR 3D, and I was just amazed the entire time. From the beautiful opening sequence narrated by Ian Holmes as Bilbo, to the fantastic framing story that took me right back to The Fellowship of the Ring as though 10 years hadn’t passed, and the transition to the marvellous performance by Martin Freeman, the movie managed to feel like a seamless part of The Lord of the Rings in a way that I just couldn’t imagine possible.

The 48fps still seemed a bit choppy in wide pans but the colors were much brighter without the strobing 3D sometimes has, and it was extremely enjoyable. Nothing ever looked like poorly-lit video. Instead, everything was clear and sharp and the lighting was fantastic.

I was worried that Ian Holmes and Elijah Woods would have cameos that felt contrived. Instead, it all felt natural and perfect. The movie flowed quickly and everyone I was with said it didn’t feel like 3 hours at all. The extra time really allowed for a sense of what Bilbo is giving up when he goes on an adventure. And they fulfilled many callbacks to the story from The Lord of the Rings (“Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo’s hand.”) in a way that I think will make the entire series very satisfying to watch together in the future.

There was a lot of Elvish in the movie. Quite a lot of Sindarin and some really beautiful, charming Sindarin dialog between Gandalf, Galadriel, and Elrond that is flawlessly executed by the actors that both restores the Hobbit elves to the majesty found in The Lord of the Rings and also imparts a sense of the larger world Bilbo has stepped into. Both Gandalf’s and Radagast’s spells are obviously in Quenya, although as in The Lord of the Rings not subtitled, and the eastern orcs speak Black Speech exclusively. It’s these little details that cement the dedication to Tolkien’s world and provide a fantastically approachable movie that stands on its own while still having so much for hardcore fans.

Today I decided to read a few movie reviews and was baffled to see the complains about filler, bad pacing, and bad presentation technology. I was really glad to see this review and find someone else had seen the same movie I had seen.

Mark, thank you for your review. Not only did you review the film, but you also addressed the unfair criticisms found in other reviews, and you managed to do it by presenting counterarguments rather than just proclaiming others wrong. As a reviewer, it’s not your job to agree with me, but it is your job to present a case to help me decide based on your review whether a movie’s worth seeing. I was very happy to see that you don’t have a problem with people not enjoying this movie but wanted to make sure they didn’t enjoy it for the qualities it actually has, and not the puzzling untrue claims popping up in so many other reviews. I’ll be following your reviews in the future.

I agree! This movie was a fantastic voyage back into Middle-earth with its own wonderfully comedic tone that still managed to feel like a part of The Lord of the Rings. I can’t wait to see the other two parts.

I loved the Hobbit. I am not a fan of LOTR and fell asleep during Return of the King. I went to see the movie reluctantly with a friend who had free tickets and was very pleasantly surprised. I enjoyed the humour and thought Martin Freeman was brilliant. Don’t let the critics put you off – go and see the film and judge for yourself.

I saw the movie last night in 3D at 48 frames per second. First about the technology: I hated it. I’m not a fan of 3D to begin with, it’s too dark, exhausting to watch and at this stage still unrealistic and gimmicky. The 48 fps on top of that removed any kind of big cinema screen feel from the movie. Everything looked rendered, kind of like a computer game, very plasticky and a bit like a cheap TV production. Particularily the scense where the fellowship was hunted through the hills just before Rivendel looked utterly unrealistic. I’d strongly recommend the 2D 24fps version, which hopefully looks more like the glorious LOTR trilogy. The movie: It was ok but certainly not as engaging and well-scripted as the LOTR movies. The ending was an insult to the viewer’s intelligence – this felt like Jurassic Park 4. Which makes me wonder whether I am the intended target audience for The Hobbit, it was heavy on SFX but light on substance. For a movie that long there wasn’t really a whole lot happening in terms of story progression. I was missing subtlety in the characters (like the inner struggle of Frodo between the throroughly good person and the dark forces of the ring taking over in LOTR). In contrary to the 3D onslaught of The Hobbit the figures in it felt a bit one-dimensional.

Coming out of the cinema, I felt like I had just been treated to a Happy Meal, not a fantasy gourmet feast. For Jackson it’s hopefully back to the drawing board, especially the technical issues need to be addressed for part 2 and 3. 2/5

Either Mark Hughes is a hero, or a fanboy. I can’t wait to see the movie and find out which.

The most interesting point here is that, according to Mark, the movie is very much tied to the book. The Lord of the Rings, for obvious reasons, could not be (without making them 9 movies). I have to say that it is rare that the extended versions of a movie is better than the theatrical one, but this was the case with LOTR. The extended editions focused more on backstory, character development, and pure beauty of film. What Mark seems to be saying is that Jackson skips right to the “extended edition” feel in the theatrical release. Good for people who want a real movie, not so good for the people who want the cheap and lazy products that Hollywood has been pumping out.

Thank you for your positive review of the Hobbit. I have seen it in 48fps 3D and 24 fps 3D. 48 fps is the way to go! The clarity was far superior which truly helped enjoy the scenes where there is a lot going on esp in the goblin scenes. I think other reviewers may have found the start was slow, because the rest of the film goes at such a rollicking pace. I loved the book. I loved the movie, even the bits that Peter Jackson and co have taken artistic license with. And I esp enjoyed 48fps.

Finally it is here the movie that defined a generation is back for another round does it deliver? If you want a close look at the film and what i thought of the Frame Rate check out my channel- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJRt-HmFgQ8

I enjoyed your review. Being in the midst of final exams (I’m a grad student), I was fortunate to have missed the negative press you describe.

I’m not a fanboy of the Lord of the Ring series, but I did enjoy them immensely. My fondness for them and a desire to let off some steam when the aforementioned finals were over led me to join some a dozen of my classmates in a midnight showing here in Honolulu.

The storytelling and the cinematography were as I’d expected, but I will admit to being, well, slightly put off by the 48 fps film. I suppose “put off” may not be the right phrase, but it definitely felt different.

It was far more realistic and detailed, just as you describe, but I guess the problem is that it takes away the “glow” we have grown to associate with “traditional” films in the theater. For many, that is the hallmark of the cinematic experience, and with 48 fps, it is gone.

That’s a monumental change, and while some may see it as you do — going from standard DVD to Blu-Ray on HD — some might see it as taking classic films and colorizing them.

I think it’s something that we have to get used to. In the wrong hands, it can look cheap, but Peter Jackson’s Hobbit prequel utilized as well as could be expected. Toward the end, the scene with the giant birds seemed particularly suited to this new technology.